Memeorandum

July 29, 2010

The Apocalypse Comes Ever Closer

OMG - TIME magazine reports that Rush Limbaugh may have been a voice of reason on the real environmental impact of the BP Gulf oil spill:

The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?

The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare
voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less
than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh
eco-hype.

Well, Rush has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful
tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's
the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious
economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on
tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to
acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for
an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not
seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have
been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline
Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments
in Louisiana.

Scientists said the rapid dissipation of the surface oil was probably
due to a combination of factors. The gulf has an immense natural
capacity to break down oil, which leaks into it at a steady rate from
thousands of natural seeps. Though none of the seeps is anywhere near
the size of the Deepwater Horizon leak, they do mean that the gulf is
swarming with bacteria that can eat oil.

The winds from two storms that blew through the gulf in recent weeks,
including a storm over the weekend that disintegrated before making
landfall, also appear to have contributed to a rapid dispersion of the
oil. Then there was the response mounted by BP and the government, the
largest in history, involving more than 4,000 boats attacking the oil
with skimming equipment, controlled surface burns and other tactics.

Some of the compounds in the oil evaporate, reducing their impact on the
environment. Jeffrey W. Short, a former government scientist who
studied oil spills and now works for the environmental advocacy group Oceana, said that as much as 40 percent of the oil in the gulf might have simply evaporated once it reached the surface.

An unknown percentage of the oil would have been eaten by bacteria,
essentially rendering the compounds harmless and incorporating them into
the food chain. But other components of the oil have most likely turned
into floating tar balls that could continue to gum up beaches and
marshes, and may represent a continuing threat to some sea life. A
three-mile by four-mile band of tar balls was discovered off the
Louisiana coast on Tuesday.

TIME was pithier:

The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial
eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater Horizon oil, unlike the
black glop from the Valdez, is comparatively light and
degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving
surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the
Gulf of Mexico, unlike Prince William Sound, is balmy at more than 85
degrees, which also helps bacteria break down oil. Third, heavy flows of
Mississippi River water helped keep the oil away from the coast, where
it can do much more damage. Finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly
resilient. Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete
Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of spartina grasses were
sprouting in oiled marshes, and new leaves were growing on the first
black mangroves I had ever seen that were actually black. "It comes back
fast, doesn't it?" Van Heerden said.

The oil was light, the water warm, and the bacteria feasted. I recall a lot of talk that comparisons to the Valdez made no sense because Prince William Sound is so much colder, but still.

“The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and
left out there,” Limbaugh said. “It’s natural. It’s as natural as the
ocean water is.”

Well, doing nothing made no political sense, and I assume all the skimming and booms accomplished something. That said, the after-action reports will be compiled by the same people that insisted Something Be Done, so the results may not be entirely unbiased.

July 15 (Bloomberg) -- The worst oil spill in U.S. history was triggered by firefighting boats that flooded the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig with water, causing it to sink into the Gulf of Mexico and damage BP Plc’s well, a lawsuit claims.
...
“It was the flooding of the Deepwater Horizon and the resulting sinking of the rig that directly caused the piping to break and begin spewing millions of gallons of oil into the ocean,” Lloyd Frischhertz and Gerald Maples, lawyers for the spill victims, said in a complaint filed in federal court in New Orleans.

Tony Hayward said the same thing- that the Gulf was huge and the amount of oil was comparatively tiny.
For some reason, he was the enemy and that was a horrible thing to say. Then he went yachting with his son, which was way worse than Obama singing along with Paul McCartney.

Anyway, it seems he, too, had a point. I wonder if he paid all the taxes on his yacht.

Cap and trade does not appear to be happening, so they are now free to push the "no big deal" spin.

That said, I was hoping this would be the case. I'm worried about the Gulf coast tourist and fishing economy more than anything else (after cap and trade). Let's get the orange jumpsuit guys off the beaches, since they have little to do and seem to be mostly driving beachgoers away at this point.

He was again on his anti BP smear tirade, but one guest made it very clear the damage is apparently much less severe than has been hyped, at which point Cooper then shifted to questions of how calamitous this us, because if people start believing that it is not as bad (as he apparently has reported and hopes it is) then people will start discounting the press, and the requisite solutions to the Oil Spill catastrophe may not be implemented in Congress and on the ground etc.

So that was Anderson's focus---not the spill itself, but how to combat actual observations of the disappearing Oil Slick's disappearance, which are beginning to lead to ordinary citizen's calling Bulls#$t on CNN and Administration pronouncements about the enormity of this tragedy, thus hampering Media credibility and trust in Big Government in the future. That was the disingenuous weasels focus yesterday.

For Sherrod to have a case, she would have to prove "reckless disregard of the truth" on Breitbart's part that is activated by malice. She would also want to argue that she was, at the time Breitbart uploaded the video, not a public figure.

Frankly, it is real hard to win a libel suit. Sherrod would likely try these kind of arguments:

1. Breitbart's stated determination to prove racism on the part of the NAACP (in order to hit them for their 'tea party is racist' resolution) is demonstration of malice on Breibart's part.

2. Breibart, had he any prudence, would not have run with a tape like this, knowing that the tape had been edited by his source. But he was activated by his malice to run the edited tape.

Does she win? I doubt it. Does she get past summary judgement (meaning Breitbart will have to spend a lot of time on this suit)? I would not be surprised.

--1. Breitbart's stated determination to prove racism on the part of the NAACP (in order to hit them for their 'tea party is racist' resolution) is demonstration of malice on Breibart's part.--

Unfortunately if that argument succeeded it would seemingly demonstrate malice toward the NAACP not.
She first has to demonstrate something he said was demonstrably false as a matter of fact and not merely his opinion. Good luck with that Shirley.

Andrew Breitbart prays that the case proceeds to discovery. in discovery Sherrod would have to give depositions outlining her opinions about race AND reveal all her discussions with BHO administration types that led to her resigning. That discovery would show that the edited tape fairly represented her opinions and that her own words led to her being forced to resign. she wasn't libeled by AB, much less maliciously. In the meantime, BHO has to suffer the fact that discovery will prove this women is a race obsessed kook. His his Administration is full of them and shoves them out the door when an appointee's left-wing radicalism is exposed (see Rev. Wright and Van Jones). Not a good deal for BHO. The case settles quickly with a feel good acknowledgement from AB that he failed to advise the public that the tape was not complete, and by Sherrod that AB did not act maliciously.

in this case there has not been any lies. Brietbart didn't put any words in her mouth, he let her speak for herself. His original video contained her change of heart so it was NOT out of context.

she of course was a public official at the time of the speech and when the video was released.

Brietbart being determined to show the NAACP as racist is only malice if you agree with the NAACP. In a court of law the desire to find proof of something does not imply malice. If you manufacture something out of whole cloth as your proof then that action shows malice but that is not what happened here.

5,000 barrels/day for 100 days is still half a million barrels, or twice the size of the Exxon Valdez.

Depending upon the makeup, much of it could have sunk to the bottom of the Gulf already. The dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi is huge, and if it is there that may actually be the best place for it to have ended up.

Well lets not forget that Sharod said in that Anderson Cooper CNN Interview, that "Breitbart was vicious" and "a racist", and that she wanted" Breitbart to prove to her that he wasn't a racist".

Does that sort of stuff count in his favor?

If not, can we please move the trial to Girdwood, Alaska?

Remember how Ted Steven's couldn't get a fair trial in Alaska so the Judge moved it to DC for fairness. Well I don't think Shirley and Breitbart can get a fair trial in DC so let's do it up here in bear country. Heck, Ted Steven's would probably even rent out his Mansion err A frame shack that he got convicted for to the visiting Press, and then they could describe how palatial it is and what a lap of luxury it is. That'd be fitting.

We know the left wants Breitbart punished for exposing the NAACP's racism, but Sherrod's grasping at straws here. She has no case; if anything, Breitbart has a stronger case against HER for the comment she made about him wanting a return to slavery.

I am distressed by the glee evidenced in parts of Arizona but also in the DOJ and the White House over the fact that a Federal judge has just make it possible to violate Federal law with total impunity.

I suggest that Arizona make every attempt to track the increase in illegals following the ruling.

Sure they can. If I said that you were a convicted embezzler, and you were fired from your accounting job as a result, you could certainly sue.

You can sue for anything -- I know people who were sued because they complained about poor service from a pet supply store. But the only way you'd win is if the statement was false and you knew it was false.

From what Breitbart saw, remember he wasn't there, it indicate that Sherrod at the very least practiced 'benign neglect' it was only
after the attorney screwed up, that she came
to help him. AS for Spooner's statement, he knows what happens to those who criticize
Obama initiatives or personnel

If the race hustler picks her venue and draws a lib judge then AB has a problem. Don't forget that she's been suing her way to success for many years. Like any long lived parasite, she knows her way around.

I recall a lot of talk that comparisons to the Valdez made no sense because Prince William Sound is so much colder, but still.

I dimly recall government models and assessments suggesting precisely the same thing . . . and being loudly derided by the excitable types. Is it now received wisdom that the overreaction was just that? And if so, how can this be "surprising" or "unexpected"?

Since when is it malicious to bring facts to light?

Exactly. This is hilarious. When will the President and Sherrod twig to the fact that this whole race-baiting incident does not make them look good?

"Malice" in the libel context does not mean animosity-the 1st Amendment protects even (or even especially) speech which is motivated by extreme animosity (right, Captain H?). Malice in the context of libel of a public figure means publication with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. I don't see how anything Breitbart said, did or published (her own statements "out of context?") could possibly meet that standard.

If the race hustler picks her venue and draws a lib judge then AB has a problem. Don't forget that she's been suing her way to success for many years. Like any long lived parasite, she knows her way around.

As Rob points out, unless he said something demonstrably false, rather than an opinion, malice is irrelevant in the case of libel.
If she is suing for the intentional inflicition of emotional distress then she has different, probably even tougher, standards to meet.

Unless she has already filed, I'm still doubtful she'll sue. Going after an individual, probably not inclined to settle, with your own money is somewhat different than some class action gravy train against a gubmint agency just itching to assuage its guilt at the taxpayer's expense.

Is McCain or Graham on the "ethics" committee? I'd imagine McCain would love it there -- posing to show how white his toga is...

(Heard an interesting story the other day. Apparently, togas were bleached with sulfur and quicklime, so every once in a while, when a ship full of white togas would take on a little water, the quicklime would react and the whole load would burst into unquenchable flames.)

I don't get how showing an extended except of a longer speech is considered editing. AB didn't cobble together disconnected snippets of Sherrod and present it as her views. If this is defamation, I guess Obama won't have to worry in 2012 about his "no tax increase for those under $250k" or his "if you like your health insurance, you can keep it" showing up in ads ...unless the ads include the entirety of his speeches.

"Edit" is being used in a non standard way to apparently create the impression that something in the excerpt is untrue ... when the supposed inaccuracy is just that the unmodified clip is too long on self incrimination and a bit short on redemption.

The clip leaves the casual viewer thinking the victim of her racially disparate assistance was treated unfairly ... when that was only a temporary unofficial condition partially remedied later. Horrors!

If anyone is familiar with CREW-(the Melanie Sloan group)gonefrom Rangel and have found a Republican they can expose. Which is one of the problems of Washington, DC, everyone can always claim the others do it too.

Also, they are looking for a Research Director, I would think JOM has some very capable people that could do that.

For any people that live in Northern Virginia and the Capital Beltway, I would like to request some help moving the contents of a shipping container into a storage shed (it is the contents of a 3 bedroom house). For details (I'm still in the planning stage, but it has to be done after the 31st before the 7th and the 4th is probably out for other reasons) please email me at: richatuf1 (at) yahoo (dot) com